Theron Walker, Rector in Colorado, Comments on the Louisiana Stewardship Resolution Thread

Years back, some dioceses started funding GLBT ministries out of the diocesan budgets, presumably because they were a minority without a voice.  A lot of water has gone under the bridge, and now the GLBT activists control the General Convention and the Executive Council.  One could argue that these ministries were so successful, this minority no longer needs financial support.  Does anyone know of a diocese that has stopped line item funding of GLBT ministries?

Force, the power of the tax, is a dangerous approach to ministry.

The central financial dilemma of liberal religion is to keep conservative laity funding the liberal vision.  Liberals may start out to persuade with sweetness and light.  But they believe in the moralilty of their vision, and (just as important) the intrinsic immorality of opposing it.  If people will not be persuaded to ‘do the right thing,’ then eventually they must be compelled. Liberals will not strive forever with their ideological opponents.  Eventually, they will resort to coersion.  For liberals know the promised land, and they will lead the masses in that direction whether they want to go there or not. 

But that takes money.  And (in the absense of boatloads of dead men’s money) there just isn’t enough liberal laity to provide it.  So if conservatives are too ideologically backwards and reactionary to fund the journey to the promised land, well then ... they will just have to be compelled.  It’s for their own good, doncha know.  Of course, this only works if conservatives can’t just walk out the door.  Hence the desire to maintain the Anglican franchise for TEC. 

In the end, financial compulsion is a product of the disrespect that liberals hold for conservatives, and conservative theology.  But then, when does a master ever respect his serfs?

carl

bishop, if this church wanted less isolation and parochialism, maybe it should have stuck to orthodoxy, marriage, and communion. Just a thought.

Precisely!

Carl, let me just repeat your central thesis.

The central financial dilemma of liberal religion is to keep conservative laity funding the liberal vision.

Here in Colorado, churches that have left or closed have done so because of financial necessity (Holy Comforter, St. Andrews, St. Francis). The necessity was brought on by resistance to revisionism.

Of all of the sad sequelae of the siezure of The Diocese of Colorado by revisionists, the Holy Comforter saga is the most poignant to me. A vibrant parish with a spectacularly effective and holy priest, Holy Comforter was my most cherished Anglican connection away from home. A wonderful new church building, committed laity, grand music, broad church liturgy. Typical Sunday: 8 am Rite I High Mass, 9:30 Family Rite II, Youth guitar service at 11. Votive candles and Stations co-existing happily with Contemporary Praise and Worship. An English man, so wrapped into the Anglican Spirituality of the place returned home to Kent to become a CoE priest. Tuesday morning Men’s Intercessory and Eucharist (6 am in a Colorado winter) laid the needs of the parish and the congregants at the Lord’s feet. What happened? These good people understood that to continue to financially support O’Neil, Bruno, Robinson, Spong and the rest of Schori’s Merry Men was to invite damnation onto themselves. O’Neil’s persecution of Don Armstrong+, now so abjectly exposed for the foul, vain thing it was, brought dismay and disgust to the laity. They quit giving as an absolute moral imperative, and now they are gone, having shaken the DioColo dust from their sandals.

Watch for a for sale sign in the front yard. Anglicans need not apply of course. How about a Hooter’s?

Does anyone know of a diocese that has stopped line item funding of GLBT ministries?

Why would any Christian give one penny of the Lord’s money to such a church to support such flagrant sin?  I have enough to answer before the Judgment Seat of Christ that I wouldn’t want that on my record also.  IMHO

In all of these calls for funding the bottom line is do you trust your Bishop to act wisely? Most of us have to answer in the negative. If you can’t trust them with your money, how do you trust them with your soul?

Theron Walker hinted at it, but stewardship is not just time, talent, and treasure.  Stewardship involves the whole person.  We are not just stewards of the material or personal gifts that God has given us.  We are also stewards of the Faith that has been entrusted to us.  I submit that you cannot be a good steward of time, talent, and treasure if you are not a good steward of the Faith that is given to you first.

By failing in this aspec of stewardship - stewarship of Faith - TECUSA has become poor stewards of all the other aspects of stewardship and her members don’t learn real stewardship, and thus the Church suffers, the ministry suffers, and the people suffer.  Instead of proclaiming a message of self-denial (which is good in financial matters as well as spiritual ones), TECUSA follows the world in its “Get it Now!” message.  This makes for poor faith, poor stewarship, and poor members.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

#7 -  Bishop Jenkins is a good man who is well grounded in the faith.  Where I disagree with him is on taking a stand.  I believe it is imperative that our strong leaders, like Bishop Jenkins, take a firm stand on the issues facing the church.  We would be looking at a much different church if Bishop Jenkins had been elected Presiding Bishop.  At a minimum no one would be confused about whether Jesus was just another vehicle to the divine.

Sadly, though, Jackie, I think the person who best represents our church is the current PB.  I think that’s what makes it so bad.  She is the one who was elected by the majority at General Convention.  She is, therefore their chosen representative, and indeed the representative of our church.

My, my it seems as though we Anglicans are beginning to act like the Muslims in Iran.  If you are not part of “our” sect then you will be shot or at least persecuted for awhile.  And, in the Dio of Western Michigan we are in the final stages of moving toward the mandatory-giving-from- the-bottom-of-our-hearts-to-the-glory-of-God-and-if-we-don’t-do-it- right-then-the-bishop-will-take-over the-whole-ballgame.  Although personally I doubt that God is included in any of the grants because that would not be politically correct and would be injecting religion into a domestic program (MDG).  And we all know that God is not to be a part of government.  oops, the cats got loose have to go wrangle awhile.

“We’re a family.” “We have to move from isolation and parochialism to common ministry!” Uhhh, bishop, if this church wanted less isolation and parochialism, maybe it should have stuck to orthodoxy, marriage, and communion.

Hey, how about redistributing the wealth to the “breakaway” churches? Don’t they qualify as “mission” churches?

[2] carl,

I don’t know if you realized this when you wrote the following

…financial compulsion is a product of the disrespect that liberals hold for conservatives, and conservative theology(,)

but you have just stated, unambiguously and simultaneously, both the Christian and (what most people today refer to as) libertarian arguments against compulsory giving. Welcome to being what F. A. Hayek (considered by many to be the father of libertarianism) called an Old Whig, as well as a faithful Christian!

It is a Christian argument, because the use of such compulsion unambiguously violates the Baptismal vow to “respect the dignity of every human being.” It is an Old Whig argument because it misplaces the full responsibility and full authority to determine the nature of the use of one’s resources into the hands of another person.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist commented at 13 above
“It is a Christian argument, because the use of such compulsion unambiguously violates the Baptismal vow to “respect the dignity of every human being.”
I recently reviewed Fr. Van’s quoting of Christ Church Savannah’s (now Ugandan)  membership policy as per its articles: He states:

The By-Laws of Christ Church define a
voting member as follows:
Article 1, section 8 - Voting Member.
The term “Voting Member” means and
refers to those members of the Parish who
are entitled to vote in any election or other
matter coming before the Congregation. A
Voting Member must (i) be a communicant
in good standing*, (ii) have attained
the age of eighteen years, (iii) be a subscriber
of record+ to the expenses of the
Parish,…..
  The term “subscriber of record” means
and refers to one who contributes
financially, in more than a nominal
amount, to support Christ Church and its
programs, as reflected in the records of the
Parish. For purposes hereof, contributions
in excess of $250.00 per year shall be
deemed to be more than “nominal”.
Posted by FrVan on 10-15-2007”

I do not know if TEC parishes have adopted similar compulsory giving requirements.

On WFB…..My mother, a strong-willed conservative,  corresponded rather frequently with Mr. Buckley for whom she had great respect.  I remember one time, possibly on Firing Line, he stated:  “I and my wife”... did something or other and my mother was not thrilled with the grammatical lapse.  She wrote to him noting that she was “appalled.”  He responded by postcard:  “You were appalled, my wife was incensed.”

Oh, yes! In Dio of Western Michigan compulsory giving is now mandatory.  There is a period of time to work into it, but in 3 years (?) you must be up to speed OR you could be declared a distressed parish.  At that point the bishop and his folks come in and take over your operations and tell everyone how much their pledge needs to increase (that is the only way I see to increase income to pay off the diocese).  The particular parish I am in just barely meets expenses now and the membership is age 60+.  So I would suspect the bishop will take over - but he can’t sell it or do anything (destructive) with the building because it is a historic landmark.

[14] Dear EmilyH,

You wrote:

I do not know if TEC parishes have adopted similar compulsory giving requirements.

And the point of your statement would be what? To display your ignorance of TEC parish by-laws (by whatever name they are called)? To ask another question as though anyone who disagrees with your worldview must have questionable ulterior motives? Or just to be generally querulous?

Where in my post did I make any reference to being “a subscriber
of record+ to the expenses of the Parish … in more than nominal amount” (or even in less than nominal amount)? The parish is, within the church structure, unquestionably the most appropriate place to contribute to the “expenses of the parish.” If you will bother to look it up in a competent dictionary, you will find that expense has a number of shades of meaning, only one of which (count it—1) carries the simple meaning: “An expenditure of money; a cost.”^† Within the parish the individual has the greater influence over where and how his tithes and gifts (Disclaimer: I am assuming that you do in fact tithe, in addition to any gifts you might offer to your parish). Additionally, it is in the dommunity that is the parish that we as Christians can find the support we need to grow into the stature of Christ.

The crux of the discussion being discussed was the imposition of mandatory) assessments by the diocese on the parish, and by the national church on the diocese, both of which include not solely monies paid in return for services rendered, but monies for numerous other activities over which neither diocese nor parish nor parishioner has any actual effective influence. This is something that at least one other commenter correctly identified as a “tax.”

Finally, if you wish to express an opinion about anything contrary to that which someone else has posted you might want to consider having the maturity, courtesy, respect and consideration to offer your own opinion (disclaimer: I am assuming that you can coherently articluate one) rather than posting sophomoric innuendo disguised as implied questions. Such behavior does not reflect well on your character nor on your maturity. There are proper forensic forms typically used in debates and the forms you use are not included among them!

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

———————-
^†—Definition courtesy of The Free Dictionary, © 2008, Farlex, Inc.

P.S. Contributions in the amount of $251 per annum would hardly qualify as “more than ‘nominal’” in my book for most of the members of the parishes of I have been a member in good standing. That amount is, when all is said and done, only 69 cents per day. That having been said, there have also been among those I knew as my dear brothers and sisters in Christ those for whom finding $250 per year in their budgets to pledge to the church would have been a considerable strain, for some a strain in the short term, and for some a strain in the longer term.

The tendency of dioceses to move toward compulsory or mandatory giving is strangely unbiblical (Why am I surprised?)  The Apostle Paul did not expect it, either of individuals or of Greek congregations with regard to the needs of the larger Church; nevermind that the poverty (and, therefore, the need) of the Church in Jerusalem was, as Paul says, “extreme” (II Cor. 8:2).  Instead he says, “Each one should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly <u>or under compulsion</u>, for God loves a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:7).  Perhaps if the “Church” would believe, stand for, and do things which its members could cheerfully support, they wouldn’t have this problem.

ToAlltheWorld, I heartily agree. I find it depressing that dioceses - and parishes - are going this route. And I agree with your diagnosis:

Perhaps if the “Church” would believe, stand for, and do things which its members could cheerfully support, they wouldn’t have this problem.

“Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.  ...There was not a needy person among them for as many were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:32,34-35, -RSV)

That’s the standard to which we are called—would that I could live up to it.  The 10% “Biblical tithe”, as currently taught, is certainly not ‘Biblical’ (see Deut. 14:22-29, and not just verse 22!), and in any case falls under the old Law, as I’ve posted elsewhere. 

And sadly, I must differ slightly with Carl, as emphasized by Sarah Hey (please don’t “Heh!” me).  While it is certainly true that “The central financial dilemma of liberal religion is to keep conservative laity funding the liberal vision”, I fear that the issue is less liberal-vs.-conservative than it is institutional-vs.-individual—there are probably places where the ‘financial dilemma of conservative religion is to keep liberal laity funding the conservative vision’.

It’s certainly not prevalent in TEC, though!  TEC too long got away with relying on the fact that too few people in the pews paid much attention to what was happening at the diocesan, let alone national, level.  Our most liberal “co-religionists” (a phrase which must be used loosely) spent the past few decades volunteering or running for every position in the Church—most of which primarily required sitting through long and dull meetings—while the faithful majority failed to notice that those long and dull meetings were actually important, and were changing the “Faith of our Fathers” to the “Faith which most closely adheres to American liberal culture”.  By the time people started noticing, all those positions of power were filled by folks who had dropped the Scripture and Tradition from ‘Scripture, Tradition and Reason’, and redefined Reason to match current pop psychology… and here we are today, a faithful remnant, determined to ‘Stand Firm in Faith’, but surrounded by those who see the world very differently from the way we have seen in for some 20 centuries.

And, since quoting Scripture in TEC is, well, ‘declasee”, I’ll go to pop culture: “Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right—here I am, stuck in the middle with you”.

Can’t imagine anyone I’d rather be stuck with though… despite the occasional “Heh!”.
FCZ+

Welcome to being what F. A. Hayek (considered by many to be the father of libertarianism) called an Old Whig, as well as a faithful Christian!

[#13]Martial Artist,
I trust that being an Old Whig is a good thing, right?  It can only be a good thing to be associated with Edmund Burke.
carl

there are probably places where the ‘financial dilemma of conservative religion is to keep liberal laity funding the conservative vision’

Conservative religion doesn’t need to depend upon liberal laity.  It is more than content to rely upon its adherents who have shown themselves more than willing to sustain it.  And conservative religion doesn’t lend itself to obfuscation.  It makes unambiguous claims.  How do you dress up in liberal clothes a conservative view of truth?  It doesn’t exist in the gaps between shades of grey.  A conservative vision cannot masquerade as a liberal vision.  So I don’t see how conservative leadership could lead a liberal congregation down the path. 

Liberal religion is fundamentally sourced in a denial of the knowability of Truth.  It’s true that many in the general population believe this.  But they have logically concluded that the unknowability of truth makes religion extraneous.  Only an elite few want to bother with a religion of uncertainty, and by and large they want to lead.  With no liberal laity available, they have to parasitically insert themselves into conservative churches.  Hence the origin of the dilemma.

carl

Carl, I fear you’re taking my comment further than it was intended to go.  Perhaps it is true that “Conservative religion doesn’t <u>need</u> to depend upon liberal laity” (emphasis mine), but I certainly know of at least one conservative diocese where one its very wealthiest parishes is also very likely to remain with the “Formerly part of the Anglican Communion-Liberal Episcopal Church” should there be a split, while the vast majority of the diocese will remain orthodox and Anglican.  Thus, while the diocese may not ‘need’ to depend upon funds from that parish (and others of its ilk), it has certainly benefited from them for some time.

For the rest, I certainly never said anything at all about conservative religion lending itself to obfuscation or making ambiguous claims, nor that conservative leadership was leading liberal congregations “down the path”.  Rather, I have seen orthodox leaders attempt to a} keep liberal parishes within the fold, and b} lead them UP the path… towards the true faith.  There is certainly no hope of leading them back to the faith if they are no longer within the fold.  [The Good Shepherd doesn’t look at the sheep straying off to the left and say “Oh, well—it was more trouble than it was worth”—He goes and tries to reunite it with the flock before it falls over the cliff into the abyss.]

I’m also not sure I agree with you when you say “Liberal religion is fundamentally sourced in a denial of the knowability of Truth”.  An awful lot of liberals seem convinced that they <u>do</u> know the Truth—and that it is a brand new Truth, recently revealed to them (“God is doing a new thing”)—and that it is the rest of us poor benighted conservatives, stuck in the past, who are unable to see the Truth that the Holy Spirit has made so very clear to them.  The folks at General Convention weren’t saying that Truth was unknowable—they were saying that they, and they alone, were privy to it, and the rest of the world could either follow along or go to… well, I’m not sure their new “Truth” includes any sort of Hell, since an all-accepting God, one who ‘loves you just the way you are’ without demanding any sort of repentance or change, would have no reason to condemn any one… with the possible exception of, um… us.

[21] carl,

In answer to your question

…being an Old Whig is a good thing, right?

I would reply that it depends upon the degree to which one values liberty, both one’s own and that of others. I certainly intended it as a compliment—I self-identify as an Old Whig, and have immense respect for Burke, as well as for Adam Smith.

Blessings and kind regards,
Martial Artist

[23] CanonZ,

Your comment An awful lot of liberals seem convinced that they do know the Truth—and that it is a brand new Truth, recently revealed to them (“God is doing a new thing”)—and that it is the rest of us poor benighted conservatives, stuck in the past, who are unable to see the Truth that the Holy Spirit has made so very clear to them. rightly in my opinion, remarks one of the great ironies emanating from the self-contradictory positions occupied by those who consider themselves “liberal” (despite their adoption of that term, they are actually progressives, not true liberals). Herein we have a group of people who simultaneously maintain (a) that Truth is relative, and therefore fundamentally unknowable or malleable, and (b) that they, and they alone, are possessed of The Truth. This should remind us that, although authoritarian impulses are not unknown on the right, they are much more common on the left (a politico-cultural territory that has been occupied in modern times by not only progressives, but also the national socialists and the international socialists. There are very clear material reasons for this phenomenon that have been well illuminated by the aforementioned (in [17], above) economist and social critic, F. A. Hayek.

It all rather makes one suspect that their frequent tendency to disingenuousness is not of the innocent variety.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist at # 17.  .69c./day might be a bit if you were a recovering alcoholic or a single mother left with a waft of kids, or a senior left with huge medical bills and prescriptions that must be paid.  Our church has many such.  We host two AA groups and and NA group.  We have seniors with major problems.  One was disabled many years ago in an auto accident.  Yes, she was insured, yes she does have a pension plan from which she draws funds (IBM in fact) but she’s been in that chair for a long time, and is brain injured, subject to seizures, and inflation has been devastating.  She probably doesn’t have 69c. to spare but we are happy her a full member, even vestry member of our church.

[26] EmilyH,

I do believe that if you read the entire comment you referenced, including the entire post script at its bottom, you will have noted that I addressed those of our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ for whom that amount is beyond their means. If you did read it, and didn’t take the point that is included therein, I apologize for not being sufficiently explicit for you to understand my implication that any arbitrary giving threshold, if rigidly enforced, would inevitably wrongly exclude some persons from participation as members “in good standing.”

I thought that the bulk of that post script suggesting that $250 was quite a low giving threshold quite clearly applied to those of near-average (either mean or median)and greater income, being qualified as it was by my explicit inclusion of the phrase [with the correction of my unintentional omission italicized and in parentheses]

…for most of the members of the parishes of (which) I have been a member…

If you did read all of the post script and did not “catch” that implication, I again offer my apologies for being insufficiently specific. If you did understand my implication, I am frankly puzzled as to the purpose of your latest comment.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

I’m also not sure I agree with you when you say “Liberal religion is fundamentally sourced in a denial of the knowability of Truth”. 

CanonZ,
Properly speaking, man is never a source of Truth.  He is a limited finite creature, and so can only approximate Truth.  A conservative believes however that Scripture is a reliable and unchanging reference that can allow man to apprehend Truth with sufficiency.  We believe God has spoken, and spoken with sufficient clarity.

A liberal in contrast might acknowledge the existence of Truth in some hypothetical sense, but he will deny that God has spoken with sufficient clarity, or he will deny that man is able to comprehend that which God has said.  In doing so, he removes any direct access to Truth, and forces the problem back upon his own agency.  He knows however that his own agency as a limited finite creature is insufficient to establish Truth, and so he must eventually admit that Truth is untimately hidden from man.  We are left to discern its content as best we can.  The only tools we possesses for such a task are reason and experience.  Of course, he assumes he is much better able to exercise those tools then his ideological opponents.  So a liberal really doesn’t think he possesses the truth.  He just thinks that he possesses a much better idea of the truth than anyone else. 

Of course he could charge me with the same.  I also believe I have a much better understanding of truth then he does.  The difference is in the authority behind the truth offered.  I point back to Scripture.  The liberal - relying as he does on his own experience and reason - can point no farther than himself.  This does not trouble him.  It flatters him.  For if it is true, then he must be a morally superior individual.  And he knows it is true.  It is self-evident to him.  This is why they never answer the question “How do you know the Spirit is doing a new thing?”  To ask the question is to prove you are not enlightened.  Otherwise it would be self-evident.

Now, I maintain that liberals do this not because the Scripture is unclear.  Liberals do this because they hate what the Scripture says - especially its testinomy to the sinfulness of man, for they believe man to be intrinsically good - and wish to get out from under its authority.  The alledged silence of God is simply the method by which they accomplish this task.  They much prefer their own counsel to the counsel of God, and so they must first silence the Creator that the creature may be heard. 

carl

I know this is a little late, but here’s the pertinent part of the canon change passed in the Diocese of Western Michigan, April 2007:

Section 3. Canon for Parish Apportionment

The Program and Budget of the Diocese, including its obligation to the Episcopal Church, shall be funded by an annual apportionment of each parish based on its Net Operating Income.  This income shall be the total operating income as shown on the most current annual Parochial Reports.

A parish may use as its Net Operating Income for this formula the average of the last three Parochial Reports, or the most recent Parochial Report, whichever is the smaller amount.

A parish may then deduct from this amount the actual dollar amount of apportionment funds paid to the Diocese in the preceding year.  This is the figure upon which the new apportionment is to be based.

The apportionment formula is as follows:
  10% of the first $75,000     ($1 - $75,000)
  12% of the second $75,000   ($75,001 - $150,000)
  14% of the third $75,000   ($150,001 - $225,000)
  16% of any amount above $225,001

This apportionment shall be paid in twelve equal monthly payments.

Should a parish believe it needs time to live into this new apportionment plan, it may take up to five years to do so, increasing its support of the Diocese proportionately each year.

The Diocesan office will inform each parish of its apportionment in a timely manner.  Each parish will then have a maximum of 45 days to respond in writing.  If a parish believes itself to be unable to meet the apportionment it must indicate in writing why that is so. The Apportionment Review Committee will then contact the Rector/Senior Warden to meet with them and to connect them with those groups in the Diocese that are prepared to offer assistance.

If a parish will not work in good faith with the Apportionment Review Committee and the supportive groups within the Diocese, with the goal of strengthening the parish and meeting the apportionment goal, the Bishop and the Standing Committee will have the option of prescribing a course of action for the health of the parish.

And by the way, don’t ya just love that last line about a “course of action”??

It sounds increasingly like our government rather than the church.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist